CLARENCE NARCISSE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby denied, except however that in the judgment to be entered by the district court, appropriate credit shall be given for the amount heretofore deposited in the registry of the court by the defendant and withdrawn by the plaintiff.

. Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60.

. In a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for New Trial, counsel for defendant made the following statement:

After reviewing the transcript of the testimony, counsel for defendant has found to be inaccurate the notes, taken at the trial of the action, whereon defendant’s argument that there was no evidence to support the jury’s finding with respect to the alleged violation of the Safety Appliance Act was based. Candidly conceding that the transcript clearly discloses such evidence, defendant herewith abandons its motion for judgment n. o. v. Therefore, this supplemental memorandum is addressed solely to the motion for a new trial.

Record on Appeal at 540. Defendant contended that the $175,000 awarded by the jury was unreasonable, and suggested that $41,525.67 was “the maximum limit of a reasonable range.” Id.

. On appeal, the parties dispute the propriety of ordering a new trial on all issues in the case, rather than a new trial limited to the issue of damages. Narcisse argues that the defendant conceded liability by dropping its motion for judgment n. o. v. and therefore had no right to contest liability a second time. The defendant, in turn, points to a colloquy between the court and counsel for Narcisse where counsel for Narcisse stated that his “gut reaction” was that he preferred a new trial as to all issues, rather than one limited merely to damages. Counsel for Narcisse counters that his initial reaction should not bind him, as he later filed a motion to limit the new trial solely to the issue of damages, which was denied by the trial court. However, on the present record, any grant of a motion for a new trial — either limited to the quantum of damages or general — would constitute an erroneous holding by the district court.

. U.S.Const. Amend. VII:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.